Archive for the 'Scientific Talks' Category

Sorry to get all “meta” on you guys again, but I think this is somewhat interesting. There are four basic types of posts on this blog. The first are those that deal with the “nuts and bolts” of chemistry. These posts usually include chemical structures, schemes, and links to papers. The second are those that deal with the cultural aspects of chemistry—things like chemical history, lab management, departmental politics, and ethics. The third are posts that deal with blog housekeeping and the Internet, and the fourth are silly posts that have little intellectual value.

All four varieties deal with chemistry, although some misguided readers and commenters believe that only type-I posts qualify as chemical ones. I don’t feel inclined at the moment to explain to these people that the way chemical research gets done encompasses more than molecules and reaction conditions, so if you share their parochial attitude, I suggest that you find a different blog to read.

That said, I have tried to make an effort to incorporate more type-I material here. Back on April Fools’ Day, I posted three synthetic procedures as a homage to the great Org Prep Daily: amide coupling using HATU, methyl ester hydrolysis using LiOH, and a porphyrin preparation based on the work of J.S. Lindsey. That day saw some of the heaviest traffic in the history of ChemBark, and in the subsequent month, this site has gotten a significant number of hits (well over 100) based on searches directly related to these reactions. In fact, ChemBark comes up on the first page of results when you google “HATU”, “amide bond formation”, “methyl ester deprotection”, or “porphyrin synthesis”.

To me, it comes as no surprise that a lot of people are doing their literature searches using Google. SciFinder can be a pain in the butt sometimes, and more often that not, I find that the number of site licenses here are maxed out when I want to use it. On the other hand, Google is free, requires no special software, and is great for finding ubiquitous things like sample procedures for amide couplings. What surprises me is that of all the places that Google could have sent users, so many of them landed here. This either means that only a few sites are posting the information people are looking for or that there are a lot of people searching for this information. Maybe I should go back to the April Fools’ Day posts and insert references to score some cheap citations?

While surfing around chemistry pages, I often wonder why some professors put so much effort into traveling on the lecture circuit yet never think to spend time updating their own Web sites. It would seem that one of the main purposes of jetting around the world to present your research is to inform the community about your most recent results and convince them that what you are doing is interesting and valuable. Based on two days worth of travel, you “touch” an average of 50-250 people that are in your audience. In contrast, tens of thousands of chemists have access to the Internet, and Google will drive the ones who are especially interested in your field to your site. Why not spend a couple of hours jotting down synopses of your work in HTML?

And I imagine that if more professors blogged, they could easily establish online communities of experts that would process information more efficiently than anything else going. If a grad student can create a blog that attracts a couple of thousand readers a day, a big-name professor surely would attract ten times the traffic. That said, old habits die hard.  It might take a couple generations before online forums become as popular as today’s scientific talks and conferences, but it is going to happen. I have no doubt about that.

From their Web site:

“Scientific Publishing at a Non-Profit Organization: or How to Get Your Name in Every Issue of JACS”
Presented by Sonja Krane, Ph.D.
Managing Editor, Journal of the American Chemical Society
.
Dr. Krane, will talk about working in the scientific publishing industry. In February 2006, Dr. Krane joined the American Chemical Society staff, serving as Managing Editor of JACS, the society’s flagship journal since 1897. Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, she works closely with Editor-in-Chief Professor Peter Stang and the editorial staff to manage and streamline the manuscript submission and review process. Her responsibilities include evaluating manuscripts for their fit within the scope of JACS, adjudicating minor ethical issues, representing the journal in correspondence with editors, authors, and reviewers, and developing initiatives to sustain and enhance the standing of JACS at the forefront of international chemistry journal. Dr. Krane is an alumnus of the Department of Chemistry, receiving her Ph.D. in 2004 with Koji Nakanishi. Her graduate studies centered on the characterization of a variety of plant (Ginkgo biloba) and animal (slow loris, gaur) derived natural products, as well as the synthesis of retinoid analogs for investigating activation of the signaling protein Rhodopsin.

I imagine that the question and answer period could be quite interesting.  Or maybe not (San Francisco ‘06, anyone?).  In case people run out of things to ask, how about: 

1. When do publications go directly into print without going through ASAP first?  Who makes the decision?
2. Under what circumstances does JACS allow the online edition to be edited?  When are edit notices placed in PDF files and when are they not?
3. How often does JACS find it necessary to sanction authors for ethical offenses?  What are the most common punishments?
4. Do you think the peer-review system is broken?
5. Is JACS planning to do anything cool with its Web site, like adding a news blog or online review or comment system?
6. How much money does a technical editor at JACS make?  What about the production staff and copy editors in Ohio?

So it looks like you’re in for a real treat, Columbians.  Enjoy, and let us know how it goes.

I’ve recently discovered the fantastic Web site of Ken Suslick, a Professor of Chemistry at UIUC. His stories about serving as an expert witness during a patent lawsuit and as a consultant for a Hollywood movie are good reads, and his seminar on seminars is right on the mark. Some money advice:

“Your job is to convince and inform, NOT to archive.”

“Don’t get cute [with formatting and animations].”

“Don’t go more than 50 minutes”

Finally, his collection of “Laws of the Universe” is pretty good. My favorites:

Ninety Rules of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the take takes ten percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.

The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing.

Westheimer’s Rule: To estimate the time it takes to do a task: estimate the time you think it should take, multiply by 2, and change the unit of measure to the next highest unit. Thus we allocate 2 days for a one-hour task.

So true. Westheimer still roams the halls around here and often attends seminars, including the annual lecture for the Westheimer Medal. In an introduction to the last such lecture, a second Westheimer’s Rule was mentioned: “Two weeks in the lab will save you two hours in the library.”

It never ceases to amaze me how often people waste time trying to reinvent the wheel. Thank goodness for SciFinder.